Theoretical Physics [OT thread]

[dmm]

Speaking of going faster than light, I read a very interesting book a LONG time ago that was based on the premise that our solar system had been traveling for eons in a region of space where c was reduced by 10 or a 100 compared to the rest of the universe. And then suddenly it came out, with the result that mental processes speeded up incredibly. Cows became sentient, monkeys became as smart as people used to be, average people became geniuses, and geniuses became frighteningly smart.

[Kimball]

dmm

I see. I am engineer, not a physicist. I took just enough physics to be dangerous. I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't know that I buy the "gravity waves" thing. I tend to believe the warped space theory of gravity that Einstein proposed. Looking at it that way, I think gravity would be instantaneous. Oh well.

[a philistine]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
Well, we can't do this with current technology; there's some dissent on this matter in the physics community. I found an article not too long ago that mentioned an experiment where a particle was accelerated beyond the speed of light. HOWEVER (and this is a tricky point), scientists still believe INFORMATION cannot travel faster than light. So the particle can be accelerated and do damage, but it can't be used to provide FTL communication.

{snip}

---

Actually, I think the experiment did not have a particle traveling FTL, but instead it was a wavefront which was "traveling" FTL (e.g. the peak or trough of a wave) which does not violate the ligtspeed "speed limit", there being a number of similar types of occurences which can travel FTL, but all are equally incapable of delivering information.

I think this article discusses the experiment you were talking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/natio...ics-light.html

--A Philistine

[DirectorTsaarx]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a philistine:
Actually, I think the experiment did not have a particle traveling FTL, but instead it was a wavefront which was "traveling" FTL (e.g. the peak or trough of a wave) which does not violate the ligtspeed "speed limit", there being a number of similar types of occurences which can travel FTL, but all are equally incapable of delivering information.

I think this article discusses the experiment you were talking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/natio...ics-light.html

--A Philistine

---

I couldn't get to the article (not willing to register with NY Times from my work computer), but you could be right about the wavefront moving FTL, not a particle. It's been a while since I read the article...

[Dracus]

The Japanese discovered 2 years ago a particle that in it's natural state travels faster then the speed of light. Everything on the Earth is being bombard by this particle as it moves through space. I can't remember what they called it. I will try to locate the article. It has been a year since I read it.

[capnq]

The SF novel dmm is thinking of is Brain Wave, by Poul Anderson.


[This message has been edited by capnq (edited 01 March 2001).]

[jimbob55]

The information contained in a particle of any type includes its spin and mass. A particle can't travel faster than light. It can make light speed in the case of a photon, but travelling faster than light is against the rules.
Any subatomic particle is subject to uncertainty (it don't know where it is or it don't its vector). A wavefront of a particle would be smeared out in a probabilistic sense, so that the point at which the detector sees it is a critical probability threshhold. The uncertainty may allow the particle to appear to move faster than c, but it isn't. If you measured enough wavefronts and eliminated all that were slower than light speed you could come up with some evidence that your chosen wave was breaking the rules but on average everything stays below light speed.
This concludes my dogmatic and incomprehensible rant about stuff + things.